New ad from gay-rights group: Republicans support gay marriage too, you know

posted at 8:01 pm on February 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

Something new from the Respect for Marriage Coalition keyed to their splashy new poll about same-sex marriage. Want evidence of how much the phrasing of poll questions can influence the responses you get? Here you go:

Voters express strong support for the notion that the ability to marry the person you love is a fundamental freedom and Constitutional right for every American, including gays and lesbians. Three-quarters of voters (75%) believe that it is a Constitutional right, up from 71% in 2011. This sentiment spans across party lines, as 91% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 56% of Republican voters all believe the freedom to marry the person you love is a Constitutional right.

Fifty-six percent of Republicans now support gay marriage? Wow! Wait. No. Well, sort of. Here’s what Quinnipiac found in December when they asked the question more bluntly:

q

That result is more expected. In fact, according to the AP, just 21 of the 47 Republican legislators who’ve voted for gay marriage in the past three years are still in office.

In theory, the RFMC’s result is more germane to the gay-marriage debate than Quinnipiac’s. The Quinnipiac question could be interpreted by a respondent as a question about moral support; the RFMC is asking more specifically about legality. And yet, thus far, the results of state referenda more closely resemble Quinnipiac’s evenly divided topline number than the RFMC’s. There’s a messaging lesson in that for gay-marriage supporters: If you want to win over conservatives, speaking the language of the Constitution helps. Which, I assume, is what Ted Olson and David Boies are banking on if/when the Supreme Court rules in their favor on Prop 8. A constitutional ruling could soften pockets of resistance on the center-right; my hunch is that it’ll do the opposite if it ends up legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states in one fell swoop, but we’ll see. No doubt Anthony Kennedy is wrestling with that as we speak. (Interestingly, 70 percent of Republicans in the RFMC poll thought gay marriage would be legal within “the next couple of years,” whether or not they themselves support it.)

Here’s the ad followed by the longer clip of Cheney addressing gay marriage in 2009. If the RFMC is smart, they’ll do a separate ad devoted just to him; Laura Bush and Colin Powell will help with centrists, but only Cheney stands even the slightest chance of making a dent in opinion on the right. If anything, Powell’s inclusion here will firm up righty opposition. I’ll leave you with this provocative gauntlet-tossing from Ace, addressing the endless recent intraparty skirmishes:

I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and Scolding.

I’m sick of it. I’m sick to death of it. I’m sick of making excuses for it. I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

If we’re going to have a war of all against all, let’s have it, honestly.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

It’s impossible to order religious organizations of any description or creed to recognize and/or condone gay marriage without infringing their right to freedom of religion.

If a particular religion, religious group, finds they cannot condone gay marriage, as a matter of tenet or conscience, and they refuse to perform those ceremonies, that has to be respected.

Freedom of religion is one of the basic founding principles of this nation. It is one of our most revered underpinnings and, I might add, one of the reasons that we are a successful nation. Here, religions from all over the world manage to coexist.

As for those religions who could and would embrace gay marriage, fine, but no religion, no religious group, should be forced to comply. When we consider that the legal part of marriage is essentially a civil union, and that the marriage ceremony itself is in the purview of a religious organization, compliance may be ordered by the federal government as far as the civil union is concerned, but the marriage ceremony cannot be, and should not be by its nature, coerced.

thatsafactjack on February 20, 2013 at 9:27 PM

No it’s not impossible when Gays are a protected class and any objection whether vocal or in print becomes Hate Speech.

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Equality would be treating all pedophiles the same with no exemptions for religion.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Sorry but your bigotry about Muslims or radical Mormons is as valid as someone else’s bigotry about gays. It’s not pedophilia if a nine-year old is of legal age which is what Sharia law states.

You aren’t going to be able to alter it for one exception and think that it won’t be flooded with many others.

You want to impose your moral sensibilities on Muslims but get all freaked out that someone else may feel the same about gays.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 9:36 PM

as the youth of America, for the most part, doesn’t have any issues with the concept.

Vyce on February 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Or a concept of history. The youth have no issues with lots of things. I’n not going to allow redefinition of an important societal tradition based on people with no experience in life.

If Libertarians pretending to be conservatives don’t give a crap about preserving any traditional institutions which have historically helped people to start and raise a family, then they might as well be Democrats. I mean, really. What, all social traditions are passé?

Dongemaharu on February 20, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Freedom is for everyone but evangelical Christians. They need to be rounded up and dealt with once and for all.

tom daschle concerned on February 20, 2013 at 9:36 PM

3) have seen firsthand how gay lifestyles destroy lives, an understand that promoting them bring missery.

Count to 10 on February 20, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Please tell me about your first hand knowledge of how gay relationships are destructive. I’m sure it’s a very romantic story.

rndmusrnm on February 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Please tell me about your first hand knowledge of how gay relationships are destructive.

rndmusrnm on February 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM

There is that pile of bodies?

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 9:44 PM

It’s not pedophilia if a nine-year old is of legal age which is what Sharia law states.

It is under American law and last i checked American law isn’t bound by sharia law.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:47 PM

It is under American law and last i checked American law isn’t bound by sharia law.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Gay marriage is also illegal.

You want to make marriage private but don’t have the guts to deal with the consequences of that.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 9:50 PM

You want to impose your moral sensibilities on Muslims but get all freaked out that someone else may feel the same about gays.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 9:36 PM

You think pedophilia is the same as adults having sex with other adults, i don’t.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:52 PM

You want to make marriage private but don’t have the guts to deal with the consequences of that.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Sure i do, i’ve said repeatedly all pedophiles should prosecuted regardless of religion.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:55 PM

The “gay marriage” issue is nothing more than an attempt by the militant gay activists to force society to accept their lifestyle as a legitimate, alternate state of “NORMAL”.

Right now there remains a “stigma” upon out-of-the-closet homosexuals that they believe they shouldn’t have to bear.

Devil’s advocate quote: “How dare some of you people “stigmatize” gays and their lifestyle, as being less than perfectly normal.”

.
All of the above is leading up to this:

Homosexuality will NEVER be accepted as an legitimate, alternate state of normality ………………………. period.

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 9:57 PM

You think pedophilia is the same as adults having sex with other adults, i don’t.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:52 PM

That is your imposed standards on others who believe differently. You seem very comfortable with using the government when the issue in question bothers you, but get all self-righteous when others do the same.

You support gay marriage so why play this lets make marriage private game?

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 9:59 PM

That is literally insane.

juliesa on February 20, 2013 at 9:30 PM

No that is GOD speaking.

If you feel GOD is insane I pity you when he judges you in the next life.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 10:00 PM

That is your imposed standards on others who believe differently. You seem very comfortable with using the government when the issue in question bothers you, but get all self-righteous when others do the same.

I’m very comfortable using government when the issue in question is adults raping children.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 10:01 PM

I’m very comfortable using government when the issue in question is adults raping children.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 10:01 PM

So much for your private marriage plan.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM

It is under American law and last i checked American law isn’t bound by sharia law.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:47 PM

.
Using the Christian Bible to define morality in general, and marriage in particular, is not equivalent to acquiescing to Sharia Law.

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 10:03 PM

My first cousin lived the Gay lifestyle for over 20 years leaving a wife and five children to do so. His “partner” died from Aids and he continued in it five more years. He finally left it and it took some time but he is no longer Gay. He is remarried and has a great relationship with his five children and ex wife. They would have nothing to do with him while he was living that way.

So not at all saying Gays can not repent they can. But is is a very grave sin.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Same rights and protections under the law? Fine. Like it or not I could live with that.

Just call it something else besides marriage.

But they’re not happy with just that. They have to corrupt the meaning of the word as well.

Oxymoron on February 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM

So much for your private marriage plan.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM

So you think sharia law should trump American law and pedophilia should be legal?

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 10:12 PM

So you think sharia law should trump American law and pedophilia should be legal?

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 10:12 PM

I think that the Bible is the template for American law. I think that gay marriage is illegal and should stay that way. I don’t think you get to play the sorts of games you want to play and imagine that you will be the sole arbiter as to how far it will go.

If it’s all about equality as you claim them Sharia law is equal to Christian morality. Why wouldn’t it be? Therefore there is no reason to bar a nine-year old bride except that it isn’t part of the old ways. Neither is gay marriage.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:17 PM

I support civil unions, but marriage is reserved for one man-one woman!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 20, 2013 at 10:34 PM

It’s not pedophilia if a nine-year old is of legal age which is what Sharia law states.

You aren’t going to be able to alter it for one exception and think that it won’t be flooded with many others.

You want to impose your moral sensibilities on Muslims but get all freaked out that someone else may feel the same about gays.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Right because we all know how mature all nine year old girls are.

Islamic teachings like that one is why Islam is evil by any rational thought.

Woman gets raped she is forced to marry the rapist. Evil.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 10:35 PM

If it’s all about equality as you claim them Sharia law is equal to Christian morality. Why wouldn’t it be? Therefore there is no reason to bar a nine-year old bride except that it isn’t part of the old ways. Neither is gay marriage.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Adults responsibility to protect the children among them is about the oldest tradition there is.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Right because we all know how mature all nine year old girls are.

Islamic teachings like that one is why Islam is evil by any rational thought.

Woman gets raped she is forced to marry the rapist. Evil.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 10:35 PM

I agree. It is evil.

That said if you take away Christian morality as a basis then you are left with a free for all. In that circumstance then Sharia law becomes just one option among many.

You can’t just jerk the foundations out from the law and expect that all will be well.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Adults responsibility to protect the children among them is about the oldest tradition there is.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 10:36 PM

They are adults, not children under Sharia law.

Are you a bigot who is going to force Christian morality on Muslims?

If so then what’s wrong with gay marriage being illegal?

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:40 PM

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Actually, it’s Judeo-Christian morality.
Small quibble.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 20, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Actually, it’s Judeo-Christian morality.
Small quibble.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 20, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Same diff. Same Ten Commandments.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Are you a bigot who is going to force Christian morality on Muslims?

If so then what’s wrong with gay marriage being illegal?

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Islam should be made illegal in every country in the world. It is pure evil straight out of hell.

Encouraging sex with nine year old girls and boys of any age pure evil. Incompatible with civil society.

It also equates women with animals giving them no more rights than cattle a man owns. Pure uncivil evil.

No wonder you have nothing left but insults.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 10:46 PM

No wonder you have nothing left but insults.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Try actually reading what I am posting.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM

They are adults, not children under Sharia law.

Are you a bigot who is going to force Christian morality on Muslims?

If so then what’s wrong with gay marriage being illegal?

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Hate to break it to you, but not everything is bound by religion and you don’t have to be religious to understand that adults shouldn’t rape children. You also don’t have to be secular to understand that adults having sex with other adults isn’t the same as adults having sex with children.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 10:51 PM

You want to run away from any moral judgments so you pass it off to the private sector. Well what about divorce, children, child support, incest, nine-year old brides?

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 9:02 PM

I don’t support nine-year old brides. That may be acceptable under Islamic law, but it’s not in our laws, and making our laws conform with Islamic law is a clear violation of the first amendment. While divorce is clearly prohibited under the Old Testament, it is allowed in our society, because Judaic law is not the law of the United States. The New Testament actually has little to say about homosexuality (there are no statements attributed to Jesus which address the issue), but that is irrelevant, since we don’t use the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, or any other religious text as a baseline for our laws. That is why we allow divorce, initiated by either spouse, something which was certainly not condoned in the bible, and which is still absent in many theocratic regimes. (I’ll not discuss abortion or incest, which are different topics not particularly germane to this discussion.)

The founding fathers were certainly familiar with the the Old and New Testaments (as were almost all people of European descent), but the panoply of religious affiliations represented by those who signed the constitution (Catholic, Episcopalian, Quaker, Lutheran, Methodist, Calvinist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, and at least one whose views didn’t really conform to any of those–Benjamin Franklin) are the primary indicator that specific religions did not get to impose their views on the country; if that were the case, it’s likely that the overwhelming dominance of the Episcopal Church would be dictating our laws; I doubt that you social conservatives would be down with that, considering the church’s rather leftist stance on most social issues these days (and if you’re from one of the other sects, such as Baptists or Mormons, your views would be totally irrelevant, because they didn’t exist or participate in the drafting.) Luckily, Jefferson’s “wall of separation” keeps the government from telling you how to worship. However, the other side of the coin is that you don’t get to tell the rest of the country how to govern.
I’m not going to try to convince you or any of the horde of SoCons here that supporters of same-sex marriage are right, and I doubt that even the Supreme Court deciding to uphold the decision in United States v. Windsor is going to change that. Nonetheless, you will need to recognize that (even under the most narrow possible ruling which upholds the decision in Windsor) quite a few states are going to allow same-sex marriage, and the federal government will have to recognize same-sex marriages in the states which legally permit it. A more comprehensive ruling will make it legal everywhere, through an application of the full faith and credit clause to the constitution; that is not an element of the case presented by Boies and Olson, but it can be dragged in by any of the nine justices, and if five of them agree, DOMA will be struck down in its entirety.
It’s interesting to me that the people most opposed to SSM are the conservatives on the Social Right and the “gay liberation” activists on the social Left. Maybe it’s true that the further apart groups are on the political spectrum, the more they tend to hold positions which are indistinguishable. I would think that a same-sex couple entering into a marriage is a profoundly conservative stance, as it eliminates promiscuity and promotes stability. Marriages (whether or not they result in children) have a host of legal recognitions, which should not be limited to opposite sex-couples, such as hospital visitation rights (I was likely excluded from the final check-in procedure for my spouse on one occasion because my marriage is not valid in Florida; some legal documentation fixed that issue, but it should not have ever been an issue in the first place), and there are financial issues such as inheritance taxes and survivor benefits, for which there is no rational argument to exclude same-sex couples while extending those benefits to opposite-sex couples. Other considerations come into play with DOMA; my spouse and I pay about $8,000/year more for health insurance because of DOMA, and yes, I do consider that to be insulting, after serving 20 years on active duty in the military; being relegated to second-class citizen status is offensive to anyone, but doubly so for anyone who spent time making sure that our nation’s freedoms were protected.

I really dislike the corrosive effect that SoCons have on our politics. As long as they are a major component of the Republican Party, I am politically homeless. I can’t stand the fiscal illiteracy of the Democrats (don’t even start about the Green Party idiots). The Libertarians are filled with crazy people who want to privatize the roads, and won’t accept incremental change (and therefore settle for nothing at all, rather than slight improvements). The Constitution Party is where the SoCons belong, since their views are pretty much aligned, and there are no pesky secular people there to argue against your worldview. Leave the Republican party to those of us who want a smaller government in matters both fiscal and social. We’ll manage somehow, likely through people who have left because they didn’t like the constant “fetus and faggot” arguments coming from SoCons who think that allowing two men or two women to marry is going to destroy our civilization. I think that our society is more resilient, and we can expand our worldview without destroying American Exceptionalism. YMMV, of course, and everyone is entitled to their own view. They may not be of equal worth, but that is another topic entirely.

Horologium on February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Hate to break it to you, but not everything is bound by religion and you don’t have to be religious to understand that adults shouldn’t rape children. You also don’t have to be secular to understand that adults having sex with other adults isn’t the same as adults having sex with children.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Hate to break it to you but you don’t get to determine the rules of tossing out the Christian underpinning of the law. If they get tossed as you want then others will be pushing their own agenda. One of those other groups are the Muslims.

You want to play a game where you get to decide what gets tossed based on your personal preferences. You like gay marriage so lets throw that out and you don’t like nine-year old brides so we will keep that part.

It doesn’t work that way. You don’t get to destroy the foundations of society and predetermine the outcome when it comes crashing down. Life doesn’t work that way and it never has. Free Love resulted in single mothers who vote for a socialist paycheck. Oops.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Hate to break it to you, but not everything is bound by religion and you don’t have to be religious to understand that adults shouldn’t rape children. You also don’t have to be secular to understand that adults having sex with other adults isn’t the same as adults having sex with children.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 10:51 PM

True.

GOD says both are pure evil.

But even those with no religion know the do not want their children raped.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 10:57 PM

I do consider that to be insulting, after serving 20 years on active duty in the military; being relegated to second-class citizen status is offensive to anyone, but doubly so for anyone who spent time making sure that our nation’s freedoms were protected

Yeah was gonna answer you whole diatribe, but then I saw this little tidbit. If you did indeed serve 20 years, you are entitled to Tricare for $548 dollar a year- so knock off the sob stories mmkay..

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 11:03 PM

Horologium on February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

. Leave the Republican party to those of us who want a smaller government in matters both fiscal and social.

Oh and BTW, gay marriage supporters are as far away from small government as you can be. Supporting state sponsored private relate sexual relationships for no pratical reason other than it makes you feel good and two people are in looooove as big government as you can get.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 11:06 PM

Horologium on February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

.
Doesn’t “wash”.

Sexual morality is just as mathematically logical as fiscal conservatism (which is actually “fiscal morality”).

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 11:09 PM

Hate to break it to you but you don’t get to determine the rules of tossing out the Christian underpinning of the law.

Where in the bible does it address pedophilia?

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM

If freedom means freedom for everyone, then why this?

During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.

When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.

“The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman,” Hoffman says. “We’re not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It’s just, that’s where we stand, and we’ve always stood that way, and that’s why we said no.”

The refusal came as a shock to Bernstein, who says Ocean Grove has been revived by the gay community.

“We were crushed,” she says. “I lived my whole live, fortunately, without having any overt prejudices or discrimination waged against me. So while I knew it was wrong, I never knew how it felt. And after this, I did know how that felt. It was extremely painful.”

Luisa says that initially, they walked away from the situation. “We were so stunned, we didn’t know what to do. But as we came out of our initial shocked stage, we began to get a little angry. We felt an injustice had been done,” she says.

Tolerance says that you respect another person’s views — and you don’t impose yours upon them. Luisa’s initial viewpoint was absolutely correct — walk away from a place which is owned by a religion that doesn’t want to associate with you or your putative sins.

But then came the anger — and the lawsuit.

Given that teh gays chose this battle, I can see where things are going for my church, so I’m digging in my heels.

No gay marriage. Once I would have said “OK”, but not after this.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Hate to break it to you but you don’t get to determine the rules of tossing out the Christian underpinning of the law.

.
Where in the bible does it address pedophilia?

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM

.
Oh, crap . . . . . . . . . . I wonder if Jerry Sandusky’s legal defense coulda’ used that (No … I’m glad they didn’t).

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 11:16 PM

That may be acceptable under Islamic law, but it’s not in our laws, and making our laws conform with Islamic law is a clear violation of the first amendment.

That would prohibit the establishment of a state religion not the age of consent.

the primary indicator that specific religions did not get to impose their views on the country

They were all Christian and that is what informed the founders as to what moral code should be adhered to.

Luckily, Jefferson’s “wall of separation” keeps the government from telling you how to worship.

Not in the constitution. That was in a letter (Danbury?) and he attended the largest church in the nation which held their services in the House Chambers of the Capitol Building in Washington.

However, the other side of the coin is that you don’t get to tell the rest of the country how to govern.

But you do.

A more comprehensive ruling will make it legal everywhere

As we see here.

I would think that a same-sex couple entering into a marriage is a profoundly conservative stance, as it eliminates promiscuity and promotes stability.

Well then you don’t think very deeply because it does nothing of the sort as even the most cursory investigation would reveal. You haven’t bothered with even that much.

I really dislike the corrosive effect that SoCons have on our politics. As long as they are a major component of the Republican Party, I am politically homeless.

Good.

Leave the Republican party to those of us who want a smaller government in matters both fiscal and social.

Horologium on February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

I have heard this garbage before and it is always a lie. You claim to want small government but you demand state recognition right off. It always results in bigger government managing the affairs and enforcing ‘equality’ on others.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM

Where in the bible does it address pedophilia?

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM

It would be fornication. Plus numerous verses only give parents the right to raise their children. That is interfered with by this action. Used to be you needed permission of parents to date straight from biblical teachings. No one in bible ages would have even for a second considered this anything other than this being a grave sin deserving of death.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM

Where in the bible does it address pedophilia?

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM

In the parts that say marriage is between a man and a woman, and in other parts where it says that sex outside of marriage is sinful.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2013 at 11:21 PM

A constitutional ruling could soften pockets of resistance on the center-right; my hunch is that it’ll do the opposite if it ends up legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states in one fell swoop, but we’ll see.

I think it will have the opposite effect no matter what.

Most of us on the right aren’t big fans of the judiciary’s constitutional explorations, in which they always seem to find something no one knew was there before.

As someone who doesn’t feel particularly strongly either way about this issue, a Supreme Court decision “discovering” a right to marriage would be one of the few things that really would annoy me quite a bit.

RINO in Name Only on February 20, 2013 at 11:33 PM

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2013 at 11:21 PM

If laws against pedophilia are based on Christians views toward fornication why aren’t there laws directly against fornication between adults?

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:36 PM

If laws against pedophilia are based on Christians views toward fornication why aren’t there laws directly against fornication between adults?

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:36 PM

There were and in some rare cases still are.

In Florida “Living in open adultery” (Art 798.01) as well as “Lewd and lascivious behavior”(Art 798.02) which includes, among others, a man and a woman who “not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together” are both misdemeanors of the second degree.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 11:41 PM

I have written on this quite a bit. In fact, I was in a very recent conversation at a Facebook group (many conservative gays are members in this group), and this conversation was born. I split the long discussion between myself and others into two groups… the first being based in biology and Natural Law. I moved the bulk of the religious challenges to the second post. Lots of good resources for those in convo here:

1) A Cordial `Clambake` on the Mutability/Immutability of Homosexuality (round 1) ~ Conversation Series;

2) A Cordial `Clambake` on Biblical Dietary Laws and Homosexuality (round 2) ~ Conversation

Series

papa_giorgio on February 20, 2013 at 11:41 PM

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Oh, there are in some places. My sister got her ex arrested for illegal cohabitation with his girlfriend for grounds for a divorce.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:36 PM

.
Oh, there are in some places. My sister got her ex arrested for illegal cohabitation with his girlfriend for grounds for a divorce.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM

.
Wow. If I didn’t hear that from you, I’m not sure I would have believed it.

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 11:51 PM

There were and in some rare cases still are.

That’s right, there were and the few that are left aren’t prosecuted, but laws against pedophilia are as strong as ever because people understand the need to protect children whether they’re religious or not.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:51 PM

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM

You’d think the fact he was living with another woman would be grounds enough for a divorce.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:53 PM

That’s right, there were and the few that are left aren’t prosecuted

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:51 PM

My sister got her ex arrested for illegal cohabitation with his girlfriend for grounds for a divorce.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 11:55 PM

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 11:51 PM

It was probably well over twenty years ago. My dad hired a private detective, he staked out the girlfriend’s house and when it reached a certain time of night (??) and the lights went out, the detective called the police who arrested them. Very Peyton Placeish.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 11:57 PM

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:53 PM

He wasn’t living with her full time. Just catting around.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 11:55 PM

Eh, they’re on the wane while pedophilia laws are stronger than ever.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM

I would think that a same-sex couple entering into a marriage is a profoundly conservative stance, as it eliminates promiscuity and promotes stability.

News flash: it doesn’t do it for heterosexuals, and given that you have gay and lesbian community leaders like Dan Savage screaming that monogamy is “hurtful”, you would have to be patently stupid to believe that it will for gays.

I put it this way: if HIV/AIDS couldn’t stop gays and lesbians from being promiscuous, a piece of paper won’t do it.

Marriages (whether or not they result in children) have a host of legal recognitions, which should not be limited to opposite sex-couples, such as hospital visitation rights (I was likely excluded from the final check-in procedure for my spouse on one occasion because my marriage is not valid in Florida; some legal documentation fixed that issue, but it should not have ever been an issue in the first place), and there are financial issues such as inheritance taxes and survivor benefits, for which there is no rational argument to exclude same-sex couples while extending those benefits to opposite-sex couples.

Yes there is. The reason those benefits exist for opposite-sex couples is that they facilitate transfer of assets to a surviving spouse with children for the purposes of protecting those children.

Meanwhile, the reason they are not tied explicitly to having children is because, after several thousand years of observation, humans have recognized that children come whether opposite-sex couples plan for them or not, while same-sex couples never produce under any circumstances children.

Other considerations come into play with DOMA; my spouse and I pay about $8,000/year more for health insurance because of DOMA, and yes, I do consider that to be insulting, after serving 20 years on active duty in the military; being relegated to second-class citizen status is offensive to anyone, but doubly so for anyone who spent time making sure that our nation’s freedoms were protected.

Horologium on February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Here’s the hilarity; you whine and whine and cry about taxes, but you never take the simple and basic expedient of changing the tax law, for which there would be overwhelming support.

So you’re lying. You don’t care about taxes; you’re just using that as an excuse to demand gay-sex marriage.

I really dislike the corrosive effect that SoCons have on our politics. As long as they are a major component of the Republican Party, I am politically homeless.

Horologium on February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Not really. Since you vote, think, and act based solely on your sexual orientation and you want everyone who disagrees with you ostracized and banished, you have a perfect home with the Obama Party.

I particularly love when bigot gays like yourself whine about the Obama Party’s “financial illiteracy”. As if you care; you’d sell yourself into slavery for Stalin if he promised to persecute Christians and give you gay-sex marriage certificates, and Obama’s already doing both.

northdallasthirty on February 21, 2013 at 12:06 AM

If you’re really for equality you’d want government out of the mariage business altogether, but neither proponents or opponents of gay marriage actually care about equality, they just want to be the ones who decide which lifestyles are oficially approved and rewarded by nanny gubmint.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM

^^This!

Why are we, as proponents of freedom and personal liberty, OK with the government — be it federal, state or whatever — rubber stamping a private contract between two consenting individuals? Or 3 or 5 or whatever?

The only institutions endorsing marriage should be religious ones, since that’s where the sacrament originated in the first place. Leave it up to the individual churches, synagogues and mosques whether they want to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. But if two adults want to enter into an agreement whereby they share the same home, the same finances, etc. they should be allowed to do so without the government having some say in whether it’s OK or not. And I dare say the nature of their relationship should be immaterial.

All of that said, I think that the legalizing same sex marriage will not greatly impact the majority of gay couples. It’s mostly higher net worth couples who are disadvantaged by not having that protection; in fact, I believe one of the cases the Court is considering is an example of exactly that. Lesbian couple from NYC has been together for decades. One partner dies and her share of their $2 million apartment that bequeaths to the other partner is subject to the death tax. If I were writing an opinion in the case, I would submit the best way to resolve that problem is to reform the tax code instead.

NoLeftTurn on February 21, 2013 at 12:15 AM

One partner dies and her share of their $2 million apartment that bequeaths to the other partner is subject to the death tax. If I were writing an opinion in the case, I would submit the best way to resolve that problem is to reform the tax code instead.

NoLeftTurn on February 21, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Bingo.

The hilarity is that the bigoted screaming lesbian filing the lawsuit is an Obama Party puke who is trying to get out of paying the death tax that she and her bigoted screaming lesbian partner demanded be imposed on “the rich”.

northdallasthirty on February 21, 2013 at 12:19 AM

The New Testament actually has little to say about homosexuality (there are no statements attributed to Jesus which address the issue)

Horologium on February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Wrong.

Matt. 10:15 ” Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor’rah than for that town. ”

Matt. 11:23-24 ” And you, Caper’na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”

Luke 17: 28-30 “Likewise as it was in the days of Lot — they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built,
but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom fire and sulphur rained from heaven and destroyed them all — so will it be on the day when the Son of man is revealed.”

Suffice it to say, He’s not pleased.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:34 AM

If laws against pedophilia are based on Christians views toward fornication why aren’t there laws directly against fornication between adults?
clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:36 PM

They were very common until the evil 1960′s in America. That is when the liberals gained enough power to get rid of these laws. The death penalty for adultery in some states even. A girl in Idaho was convicted of fornication back in 2000 or so in fact.

Steveangell on February 21, 2013 at 12:36 AM

I would think that a same-sex couple entering into a marriage is a profoundly conservative stance, as it eliminates promiscuity and promotes stability…

Horologium on February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

The premise is faulty. Two men serially sodomizing one another is not marriage.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:41 AM

I would think that a same-sex couple entering into a marriage is a profoundly conservative stance, as it eliminates promiscuity and promotes stability.

Horologium on February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

The premise is faulty. Two men serially sodomizing one another is not marriage.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:43 AM

Read our platfornm and if you dont like what it says get out of the party. We support traditional marriage not gay marriage–

Bullhead on February 21, 2013 at 12:45 AM

If laws against pedophilia are based on Christians views toward fornication…?
clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 11:36 PM

They’re not. They’re based on Biblical views towards a proper view of human behavior.

The Bible, and specifically the New Testament, is not a list of rules to be applied but a perspective on reality meant to impart understanding upon which a healthy soul and, by extension a healthy society, may then make decisions upon which proper social order can be based.

The widespread acceptance of homosexual behavior in our society indicates that that understanding has already been lost.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:58 AM

The premise is faulty. Two men serially sodomizing one another is not marriage.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:43 AM

Disgusting

(your hatred, not all the sodomy)

triple on February 21, 2013 at 2:53 AM

Freedom is for everyone but evangelical Christians. They need to be rounded up and dealt with once and for all.

tom daschle concerned on February 20, 2013 at 9:36 PM

You are free to be a bigot just not free to impose your bigotry to the exclusion or preclusion of any other American’s rights.

No that is GOD speaking.

If you feel GOD is insane I pity you when he judges you in the next life.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 10:00 PM

If you believe you hear God’s voice I pity you now. Right now, there is a street-corner missing it’s raving lunatic. Get back to work.

Also, I am quite sure (without having heard from Him directly) that God would not approve of you using his vengeance as your weapon. You’re punching a little bit above your weight, Bub.

Capitalist Hog on February 21, 2013 at 3:28 AM

Oh deary me, the accuser accuseth. You funny guy.:-)

tom daschle concerned on February 21, 2013 at 4:00 AM

Oh deary me, the accuser accuseth. You funny guy.:-)

tom daschle concerned on February 21, 2013 at 4:00 AM

Explain how any Christian would have their rights violated by your marriage. Also, should adulterers be disallowed from marrying again? What about other sinners?

Hypocrisy is not bigotry. Luckily you seem to have mastered both.

Capitalist Hog on February 21, 2013 at 5:04 AM

Explain it says. yeah lot of good that would do.

Such silliness…thanks for entertaining me this morning. you are repetitive and boring, but it amuses me a little bit nonetheless.

tom daschle concerned on February 21, 2013 at 5:15 AM

Disgusting

(your hatred, not all the sodomy)

triple on February 21, 2013 at 2:53 AM

Right. Being offended at the notion of two men sodomizing one another is disgusting but two men SODOMIZING one another is not.

This is what we are up against, folks. This is not a MIND at work here that can be reasoned with; that can be shown the errors in its thinking process and can therefore learn and correct its behavior. This is a spirit (spirit; not “ghost”)which cannot be reasoned with and will never let go of its captive souls.

If this thread is anything, it is a testament to this reality. There are good and sound arguments given here against this development, given without rancor or personal hatred, from posters most noted amongst the Hot Air contributors for their moderate and reasoned tone in all matters, yet the practitioners of this abhorrent behavior are immune to them and cannot see the disastrous consequences for themselves and the society they are creating with their sexual perversity and licentiousness masquerading as psychological normalcy.

Pray for your grandchildren. Pray hard.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 7:53 AM

Mind your business, stay out of mine. That’s the bedrock of my conservatism. I don’t need to feel justified, morally superior, Biblically endorsed, or normal, even. I just want to live my life, my way, and will happily give you the right to do the same. Don’t like sodomy? Don’t drop the soap.

datripp on February 21, 2013 at 8:33 AM

I’m sick of it. I’m sick to death of it. I’m sick of making excuses for it. I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex children, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality pedophilia.

It’s coming folks. Slippery slope and all.

Nutstuyu on February 21, 2013 at 8:34 AM

Mind your business, stay out of mine. That’s the bedrock of my conservatism. I don’t need to feel justified, morally superior, Biblically endorsed, or normal, even. I just want to live my life, my way, and will happily give you the right to do the same. Don’t like sodomy? Don’t drop the soap.

datripp on February 21, 2013 at 8:33 AM

I’m sure you have the exact same sentiment for smoking, marijuana use, drinking alcohol, eating 2000 calorie burgers, etc. ‘Cuz homophile lifestyles are just as unhealthy and dangerous as those things that the government insists on controlling.

Nutstuyu on February 21, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Right. Being offended at the notion of two men sodomizing one another is disgusting but two men SODOMIZING one another is not.
This is what we are up against, folks. This is not a MIND at work here that can be reasoned with; that can be shown the errors in its thinking process and can therefore learn and correct its behavior. This is a spirit (spirit; not “ghost”)which cannot be reasoned with and will never let go of its captive souls.
If this thread is anything, it is a testament to this reality. There are good and sound arguments given here against this development, given without rancor or personal hatred, from posters most noted amongst the Hot Air contributors for their moderate and reasoned tone in all matters, yet the practitioners of this abhorrent behavior are immune to them and cannot see the disastrous consequences for themselves and the society they are creating with their sexual perversity and licentiousness masquerading as psychological normalcy.
Pray for your grandchildren. Pray hard.
Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 7:53 AM

At any given time people are having sex somewhere. Men and women, men with men and women with women. They are kissing and cuddling and having intercourse. Always has been this way. Isn’t this part of the human experience? I say whatever turns on consenting adults is fine. Aren’t we supposed to be about freedom and letting adults do what they want? Why on earth would you be concerned about the kind of sex people are engaging in. Is sodomy between a man and woman also perverse to you? Let’s quit being prudes about sex. The psychological problems seem to be with those obsessed with where other people put their genitalia.

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Freedom is for everyone but evangelical Christians. They need to be rounded up and dealt with once and for all.

tom daschle concerned on February 20, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Not to pick on you, but I’m tired of the media’s distinction of “evangelical Christians”. Christ commanded his followers to preach the gospel and make disciples, so if a Christian is not evangelical, they’re not a Christian.

Nutstuyu on February 21, 2013 at 8:42 AM

Aren’t we supposed to be about freedom and letting adults do what they want? Why on earth would you be concerned about the kind of sex people are engaging in. Is sodomy between a man and woman also perverse to you? Let’s quit being prudes about sex. The psychological problems seem to be with those obsessed with where other people put their genitalia.

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 8:41 AM

No, we’re not. Because then we’d be nothing better than animals. Unless of course you’re fine with just being a hairless monkey.

And who gets to decide what a “consenting adult” is? Isn’t that just someone legislating their morality? I know many 16 year olds that are more “adult” than 26 year olds.

Nutstuyu on February 21, 2013 at 8:44 AM

You watch. They get this passed on a Federal level & let’s count how long it takes for the polygamists, animists, & pedophiles to come out of the woodwork & demand their ‘right’ to be recognized.
Oh yeah trolls. Tell me that won’t happen.

Badger40 on February 21, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Mind your business, stay out of mine. That’s the bedrock of my conservatism. I don’t need to feel justified, morally superior, Biblically endorsed, or normal, even. I just want to live my life, my way, and will happily give you the right to do the same. Don’t like sodomy? Don’t drop the soap.
datripp on February 21, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Absolutely… And how do you do that?

Get government out of marriage.

Skywise on February 21, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Situational morality.

kingsjester on February 21, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Reading people here gives me great hope that the day will come when churches lose their tax exemption for not having gay marriage. And it certainly does seem to be the future, because it is just given what happened to Bob Jones University and its tax exemption in the 1990′s.

thuja on February 21, 2013 at 9:12 AM

As someone who doesn’t feel particularly strongly either way about this issue, a Supreme Court decision “discovering” a right to marriage would be one of the few things that really would annoy me quite a bit.

RINO in Name Only on February 20, 2013 at 11:33 PM

Yeah, it would be a shame if the Supreme Court “discovered” equal protection under the law anywhere in the Constitution.

I’m not trying to make light of your point, I get that. And before you render the “gay people have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else” argument, please note that the law as currently written in most states excludes gay marriage. That exclusion is, by definition, unequal treatment under the law.

But, like you, I really couldn’t care less who you sleep with or even marry. I don’t consider myself enough of a busybody to presume to poke my nose into your private business. Do you? Why should the govt?

It’s all about liberty folks. If we use the govt to impose our morality on others, they’ll use it to do the same to us. And frankly, they’re much better at it. Think about it.

runawayyyy on February 21, 2013 at 9:16 AM

You watch. They get this passed on a Federal level & let’s count how long it takes for the polygamists, animists, & pedophiles to come out of the woodwork & demand their ‘right’ to be recognized.
Oh yeah trolls. Tell me that won’t happen.

Badger40 on February 21, 2013 at 8:47 AM

You’re correct, that will happen. But in case you haven’t noticed, it’s already been happening. However, if you believe the pedophiles will gain the legal right to rape children because 2 guys get hitched then you need to rethink your beliefs. It only makes you sound hyperbolic.

On the other hand, if they actually do gain such a right, it won’t matter much anyway. We’re well past done at that point.

runawayyyy on February 21, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Reading people here gives me great hope that the day will come when churches lose their tax exemption for not having gay marriage. And it certainly does seem to be the future, because it is just given what happened to Bob Jones University and its tax exemption in the 1990′s.

thuja on February 21, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Kind of a reprobate sodomite wet dream come true?

tom daschle concerned on February 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM

The New Testament actually has little to say about homosexuality (there are no statements attributed to Jesus which address the issue)

Horologium on February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Nor does the NT say anything about smoking, owning “assault weapons”, drinking 32oz sodas, or eating cheeseburgers. Yet your beloved Democrats can’t seem to keep their regulatory hands off those things. The homophile lifestyle is just as if not more dangerous than those things, so I expect HHS or CDC to be knocking on your door any minute now.

Nutstuyu on February 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Reading people here gives me great hope that the day will come when churches lose their tax exemption for not having gay marriage. And it certainly does seem to be the future, because it is just given what happened to Bob Jones University and its tax exemption in the 1990′s.
thuja on February 21, 2013 at 9:12 AM

That seems awfully vindictive. You just want to have power over them and force them to accept your beliefs. You are bad as the anti-gay bigots.

No, we’re not. Because then we’d be nothing better than animals. Unless of course you’re fine with just being a hairless monkey.
Nutstuyu on February 21, 2013 at 8:44 AM

But what exactly is it hurting if two people are having consensual sex in private? Why is it bad? I really don’t get it.

Ok, this is going to sound weird, but I find reading about weird addictions and fetishes strangely entertaining. Not because I want to try them myself, but because I think it’s fascinating. Some people like to eat their furniture, for example. Now that would not be healthy. Some people like feet and dressing up in animal costumes for stimulation. Some like dressing up in these weird worm tube things. It makes no sense to me, but some people like it. Some like feeding other people to get them morbidly obese. It turns them on. Now that’s another one that doesn’t seem healthy. Point is, there is a lot of variation out there in terms of human sexuality. How can you possibly start saying what is right and wrong when adults are consenting to it?

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 9:24 AM

The psychological problems seem to be with those obsessed with where other people put their genitalia.

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 8:41 AM

No, bluegill. Let me say this real slow for you so you can grasp it.

It…is…psycho sexually…dysfunctional…for…a…man…to…be…sexually…
attracted..to…another…man.

OK?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM

How can you possibly start saying what is right and wrong when adults are consenting to it?

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 9:24 AM

There’s your problem, right there, bluegill.

WE aren’t the ones starting to assert something is right or wrong.

Understand?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If we redefine marriage we also have to redefine:

consummation
abandonment
husband
wife

How exactly is a gay marriage consummated?

Time for civil unions for all. Benefits tied to children. If you want the word “marriage” you need to go to a church.

monalisa on February 21, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Nutstuyu on February 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Actually, it says an awful lot about ALL of those things but since those who wish it to be otherwise only read the Bible looking for loopholes so that’s all they see.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 9:33 AM

But what exactly is it hurting if two people are having consensual sex in private? Why is it bad? I really don’t get it.

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Are you really that clueless?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Horologium on February 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Hey idiot… There are at least 40 millions Republican voters who are very much social conservatives, if they leave the Republican party where the f*** are you going to make up for these numbers…

mnjg on February 21, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Reading people here gives me great hope that the day will come when churches lose their tax exemption for not having gay marriage. And it certainly does seem to be the future, because it is just given what happened to Bob Jones University and its tax exemption in the 1990′s.
thuja on February 21, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Atleast thuja you are honest about your intentions. You are what all of us have been saying. You want to force the Church’s hand through lawsuits etc. The agenda is not live and let live. It is always been about forced acceptance. Thank you for being honest. It makes my decision in the mid 2000′s from being firmly in the pro-gay marriage camp to being firmly in the anti-gay marriage camp that much firmer.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Hey idiot… There are at least 40 millions Republican voters who are very much social conservatives, if they leave the Republican party where the f*** are you going to make up for these numbers…

mnjg on February 21, 2013 at 9:39

They can never answer that.. Apparently if we support gay marriage.. The 3% of gheys are going to get off the Democrat plantation and make up that number. Or the dumb A$$ young women who thought we were going to ban their tampons.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 9:41 AM

No, bluegill. Let me say this real slow for you so you can grasp it.
It…is…psycho sexually…dysfunctional…for…a…man…to…be…sexually…
attracted..to…another…man.
OK?
Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM

I see what you’re saying. But what is normal sexual behavior? You say “dysfunctional” like there is one kind of proper sexuality. There is so much variation out there. And there are lots of homsexuals out there too. Nothing inherently wrong with it. There always will be homosexuality. Just like there will always be people attracted to all kinds of stuff. Might as well get used to it. It’s not changing. Aren’t people entitled to their preferences and acting on them? Sex isn’t just about making babies.

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 9:47 AM

The New Testament actually has little to say about homosexuality (there are no statements attributed to Jesus which address the issue), but that is irrelevant

Christ did not talk on every subject under the sun but Paul was very clear on the homosexuality issue. Read the letter to the Romans and Paul opinion on homosexuals…

I am not a practicing Christian, I consider myself a huge sinner (ex: fornicator) and I do not want to add the sin of hypocrisy by claiming that I am devout Christian… However unlike you who refuse to consider homosexuality as a sin as the Bible is very clear on it I confess the sin of fornication as the Bible is very clear on it as well…

mnjg on February 21, 2013 at 9:48 AM

monalisa on February 21, 2013 at 9:31 AM

The whole family court system will have to be overhauled. Not to mention the fact that gays want their kids recognized as their spouses because it happens in the marriage etc. but the only reason that happens in a hetero couple is biologically it is possible that they are both the parents. Zach has been on here talking about how he can’t wait until his partner can be on the birth certificate with him. I think most of them are in lala land. The birth certificate is a public record to record BIOLOGICAL PARENTS- something two gays can never be; it is not a feel good document, and yet that is exactly what gays want some of these things to be. No matter how many laws you change, biology will be what it is, and one gay will have to legally adopt the other gays children because a third party’s donor rights will have to be rescinded to the child.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM

But what exactly is it hurting if two people are having consensual sex in private? Why is it bad? I really don’t get it.
bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Are you really that clueless?
Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 9:39 AM

I really don’t get it! Do you want to enforce a list of approved sexual practices?

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 9:52 AM

I see what you’re saying. But what is normal sexual behavior? You say “dysfunctional” like there is one kind of proper sexuality. There is so much variation out there. And there are lots of homsexuals out there too. Nothing inherently wrong with it. There always will be homosexuality. Just like there will always be people attracted to all kinds of stuff. Might as well get used to it. It’s not changing. Aren’t people entitled to their preferences and acting on them? Sex isn’t just about making babies.

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Your problem is bluegill, is that all those other sexualities are not trying to get state licensure. Yeah there are people who have slave and master contracts, but they don’t expect the state to recognize those contracts. And believe me, I know a BDSM couple who think that the state should, especially if they are going to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate sexuality. Normal is what our species is predisposed to be- hetero for the purpose of reproducing. Any variation of that belongs in the bedroom.

I personally could care less what gay people do. Don’t care if you have sex with your dog or your sister. I just don’t think the state has a stake in recognizing every fetish and sexual relationship under the sun for no practical purpose.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM

No, bluegill. Let me say this real slow for you so you can grasp it.

It…is…psycho sexually…dysfunctional…for…a…man…to…be…sexually…
attracted..to…another…man.

OK?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM

And just because they might be sexually dysfunctional doesn’t mean their rights have to be restricted or their sexual acts outlawed. (Unless children are targeted.)

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Voters express strong support for the notion that the ability to marry the person you love is a fundamental freedom and Constitutional right for every American, including gays and lesbians. Three-quarters of voters (75%) believe that it is a Constitutional right, up from 71% in 2011.

75% of voters are incorrect, nowhere does the constitution mention marriage. Gay marriage proponents would be better off pushing the idea that the feds should have no say on any marriage and leave it to the states.

Machismo on February 21, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4